Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:10:34 +0100
From:   Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To:     Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
Cc:     thierry.reding@gmail.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] pwm: pca9685: remove unused duty_cycle struct element
Message-ID: <20200226151034.7i3h5blmrwre2yzg@pengutronix.de>
References: <20200226135229.24929-1-matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200226135229.24929-1-matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Matthias,

as you seem to have this hardware on your desk, it would be great if you
could answer the following questions:

 - Does the hardware complete the currently running period before
   applying a new setting?
 - Is this racy somehow (i.e. can it happen that when going from
   duty_cycle/period = 1000/5000 to duty_cycle/period = 4000/10000 the
   output is 1000/10000 (or 4000/5000) for one cycle)?
 - Does the hardware complete the currently running period before
   .enabled = false is configured?
 - How does the output pin behave on a disabled PWM. (Usual candidates
   are: freeze where is just happens to be, constant inactive and
   High-Z).

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |